I know that many of your want to work in Big Law. You aspire to a top T14 school where you think you will have a great career and hopefully earn enough to pay for those law school debts. Let me share a recent storythat I heard yesterday.

I was sitting on the plane next to a gal who attended University of Taxas and worked for a large law firm in Texas. The law firm have had already two rounds of layoffs.Most of those layed off were those that didn't meet the budgetary goals of 45 chargable hours per week. Be advised that to get 45 chargable hours, you really need to work at least 60 hours per week or more.

They were going to have another big round of layoffs when the staff voted en masse to allow a 20% pay cut if the firm would not lay anyone else off.Since the startingsalary for new lawyers was $160,000, they could still live on $128,000.

The partners thought about this and rejected the staff's proposal as being the result of "loser mentality." If you want to work in Big Law, you should at least knowwhat you are getting into for the rest of your life! Also, understand, my purpose for this post is NOT to talk you out of working for Big Law or even becoming a lawyer. That isn't my business. I just want everyone to be aware of the environment that they are getting into.

I'm trying to figure out what exactly was so negative about the environment. You think the fact that the firm would rather have layoffs than pay cuts is a problem?

In regards to the return investment etc it is very different for people that go to GGU they do not have the same expectations as a Harvard Grad does.

Expectations have no effect on the return on investment. Essentially what you're saying is, even if something looks like a bad investment, you should buy it anyway if you derive satisfaction from just owning that investment. That's fine and well if you happen to have more money than you know what to do with. Otherwise, it's not a great idea.

I'm really struggling with this, and I'm sure I won't come across as really eloquent, but I was hoping someone might help me with a question I have. Basically, I took the LSAT last year and got a score in the 170's (with a 3.9 gpa), did the usual thing, blanketed most of the Top 14. However, because of my financial situation, my close connection to DC, and just my plain desire to NOT go into debt, I also applied to the GW early decision/full ride program. So long story short, I got into the program, and am headed to GW in the fall.

So I have been reading alot of the "t14 or bust" language here and on other sites. The top school I got into was columbia (but realistically there was no way i could afford to pay full tuition and live in NYC), and i got good offers to go to schools like UVA/Mich/Penn with ~20k scolarships. My question is, how big a hole did I put myself in by committing to the GW program and not attending a T10 school?

I do not believe I want to do BigLaw (although, to be totally honest, I cannot say for certain that I want/do not want to do ANYTHING really), but I am very interested in litigation (although, again, I admit not knowing what exact specialty I'll wind up in).

Anyway, sorry to ramble, but I know that for BigLaw and academia, etc, it's a huge hit not coming from a T10, but what if I do well at GW (I won't play the % game, because I know there are just as many intelligent motivated students at GW as there are at Columbia), what would my job prospects look like coming back? Do you think I made a really poor decision, or its justifiable considering the finances and my comfort level with the city?

Thanks in advance!

Are there conditions on the scholarship? If not, I don't think it's a bad decision. I have friends who are $200k in the hole. Even coming out of a very top school, that's an enormous amount of debt to shoulder. I probably would have come out the other way, but that's just me.

It gets me to the point(and it pains me that you can't seem to grasp this) that I am in lawschool, so when someone used to be, their information is more outdated. So, when someone makes the weakass argument "but they are in a firm" that dosn't apply to lawschool at all. In fact the more accomplisments one has, the farther away from lawschool they become(unless a prof) and the less relevant their info to the actual day to day routine of a lawstudent becomes. Simple, very simple.

All fine and good except that it only gets you as far as "their information is older." That doesn't necessarily mean that their information is more outdated, because you haven't established that the information that applies to law school changes meaningfully. If things have remained the same, then their information is older but not necessarily outdated. Furthermore, they can just come back and argue that their information is informed by perspective on the experience of law school as a whole. You haven't established that being closer in time to an experience gives you a better understanding of it.

I think I told you at one point that you try to do a lot with a little. Here, again.

Secondly, in the long run all lawyers will benefit from all these schools pumping out law school graduates year after year. There will be more and more lawsuits (and need for legal services) and that results in lawyers getting paid.

At the risk (okay, certainty) of sounding preachy, I'd like to say that this is a terrible attitude to have. As a lawyer, you're supposed to be looking out for your clients. Personally, I'd rather make less money if it meant my clients had to deal with fewer frivolous lawsuits.

To change the subject, how do I upload an avatar? It's been surprisingly difficult.

On the other hand someone who goes to Stanford Undergrad and Harvard Law School really should not be speculating on how things will turn out a tier 4.

This is like saying that people who have never owned stock in a particular company should not evaluate the investment value of that particular stock. You can crunch the numbers without having ever attended a particular school. Whether or not I ever attended any particular school, I can evaluate the tuition versus the expected income with a degree from that school.

For those who follow this elitist logic- what is your counterargument on the theory of Tier 4 graduates NOT wanting to work at law firms or serve at the pleasure of an employer. This type of student attends Tier 4 to 'hang his own shingle' out there and provides 1 on 1 personalized service with clients and carves out a niche for him or her self.

Not that I think legal education should be restricted to the elite, but I'll answer anyway.

If you're just out of law school with no experience working as a lawyer, you don't really know how to do very much and you probably have the resources to do even less. Hanging a shingle is starting a small business, and this requires start-up capital. It's not easy to do this when you're already in six figures in debt. A business loan is unlikely--lenders will not consider someone one year out of law school with a six figure debt to be a good investment.

At your school are their people that have struggled to find jobs, or have low paying ones, or did not pass the bar yet? I know you said you went to a top 10, but I am sure there are graduates struggling from your school just like there are from GGU.

There were a few people who struggled. Thankfully, my class went through recruiting during the boom. A handful got hit with deferrals from their firms though.